| 1 |
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 02:31 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 2 |
> The more I think about the issue and the more I like the complete |
| 3 |
> profiles for amd64 more than the other solutions. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I don't even *want* to think of what this would be for x86. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
These are what I can think of, so far, with regards to different support |
| 8 |
on different chips. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
x86 (everything) |
| 11 |
i586 (everything i586-compatible) |
| 12 |
i586 + mmx (pentium-mmx) |
| 13 |
i686 (everything i686-compatible) |
| 14 |
i686 + mmx (pentium2+, athlon+) |
| 15 |
i686 + mmx + sse (pentium3+, athlon-xp+) |
| 16 |
i686 + mmx + sse + sse2 (pentium4+, athlon64+, opteron+) |
| 17 |
i686 + mmx + see + sse2 + sse3 (some pentium4, some athlon64, some |
| 18 |
opteron) |
| 19 |
i686 + mmx + 3dnow (athlon+) |
| 20 |
i686 + mmx + 3dnow + sse (athlon-xp+) |
| 21 |
i686 + mmx + 3dnow + sse + sse2 (athlon64+, opteron+) |
| 22 |
i686 + mmx + 3dnow + sse + sse2 + sse3 (some athlon64, some opteron) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Now, some of those aren't able to be turned on solely via -march. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'm not arguing for or against this, since I haven't bothered to read |
| 27 |
the entire thread at the moment. I just wanted to point out that we |
| 28 |
would likely end up with 12 sub-profiles for all of our profiles to |
| 29 |
accomplish this. Even if we only started this going forward, x86 has a |
| 30 |
few profiles considered "supported" by Release Engineering that would |
| 31 |
need adjustment... |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
x86/2006.1/desktop |
| 34 |
x86/no-nptl |
| 35 |
x86/no-nptl/2.4 |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
This means it is now 36 profiles to support, if we dropped support on |
| 38 |
all profiles except for the new ones. Without having any sort of |
| 39 |
multiple inheritance available, this is really unmanageable. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 43 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 44 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 45 |
Games - Developer |
| 46 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives